Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common thread throughout much of Canada’s current theatrical output is that it asks audiences to think deeply about themselves and their connection to the material. Working with the idea that theatre has an important social and educational impact, my essay examines the need to set boundaries for theatre content. These boundaries are meant to function as a set of guidelines for managing controversial artistic choices, especially in a culture where artistic freedom and productive controversy are at stake. Some of the criteria I have developed for how to set boundaries include: how the work represents its subjects; what Canadians see as taboo; personal limitations individuals set for themselves; and, contentious timing. My research examines recent case studies, starting with Robert Lepage’s Kanata, which aimed to discuss Canada’s settler history, however, was cancelled in Canada after Indigenous artists and activists wrote an open letter concerning the lack of Indigenous presence in the cast and production team. I then move to an example that challenges my proposed model with Prom Queen: The Musical, a play about an Ontario student and his boyfriend battling the Catholic school board to go to prom together. I argue that although the play may not represent the values of the school board, adequate representation of the board’s ideals should be disregarded due to their anti-LGBTQ2+ beliefs. Through these examples and more, my research found that there are certain boundaries that should not be crossed in theatre. However, determining where these boundaries are situated remains in constant negotiation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".